Europe eight back Bush on Iraq
-
Fazlul Kabir wrote: ..in other words, the innocent Iraqis that won't get killed by the bombing? How sweet? I never said it would be pretty :(, but I'm more sure that the US will keep civilian casualties to a minimum than I am that Iraq would afford us the same courtesy given the chance. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
Sure Saddam is a bad guy, but there are other even worse guys in that part of the world too. If containment worked for the last ten years, why is the rush for this scheduled killing?
-
Sure Saddam is a bad guy, but there are other even worse guys in that part of the world too. If containment worked for the last ten years, why is the rush for this scheduled killing?
Fazlul Kabir wrote: If containment worked for the last ten years, why is the rush for this scheduled killing? Containment hasn't worked, he kicked the UN inspectors out 4/5 years ago and no one had the balls to do anything about it until Sept 11 shocked some of the world into acting. A bit of pressure forced him to let them back in again but he's still obstructing any investigation; imagine what a lot of pressure will achieve. War is still avoidable. If Saddam started cooperating and disarming then there would be no argument for fast action, Bushes coalition and his already diminished public support would fall apart in an instant. Fazlul Kabir wrote: Sure Saddam is a bad guy, but there are other even worse guys in that part of the world too. Worse? Who? As bad, certainly. And in other parts of the world too. But as I said elsewhere, Saddam is the one with money to fund a WMD program, the connections to sell such weapons to widespread terrorist organisations, the demonstrated lack of conscience to do it, and the lowest support across the world (in particular the Arab world - Arafat is more popular than Hussein!). If he is allowed to destroy the credibility of the UN and the US, you don't think things will get a whole lot worse across the board? So why not him? Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
just a few: GUATEMALA/l966-67/Covert/Green Berets intervene against rebels OMAN/l970/Covert/U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion to intervene in Omani civil war. CHILE/1973/Covert/CIA funds and backs coup ousts democratically-elected Marxist president and installs military dictatorship. EL SALVADOR/l981-?/Covert/U.S. mercenaries, military advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war They do technically fit my definitions of terrorism. Your milage may differ. Might even be some are fake. Still, the list is longer, and not all of them are fake. Does every individual US American hate Saddam? Does every individual US American hate every individual Iraqui? Does only Saddam hate the US? I am not aware of the US using biological weapons. "Agent Orange" fits *my* definition of a chemical warfare. Circumstances: The other new report that the often quoted "gassing of the kurds" was while iraq was fighting Iran, both sides used chemical weapons, and the curds got caught inbetween. I'm not talking about these acts being justified or not. I don't claim Bush == Saddam. Just that: they fit the criteria set by the poster.
It's a royal pain to watch a sex drugs and rock'n'roll design decay into an aids crack and techno implementation [sighist] [Agile Programming] [doxygen]
peterchen wrote: They do technically fit my definitions of terrorism. Your milage may differ. Might even be some are fake. Still, the list is longer, and not all of them are fake. Your definition of terrorism is totally wacked! WAR (military actions by and against government entities) != TERRORISM peterchen wrote: "Agent Orange" fits *my* definition of a chemical warfare.
To the best of my knowledge, AO was used as a defoliator and not directly against civilians or other military targets.Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
Marc Clifton wrote: I only regret leaving out a few other choice countries! Like the US? :ducks and runs: Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
Like the US? Bingo! Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka -
In general, I was being sarcastic and flippant. I don't think, except for Britain, that these countries matter much in the "world opinion" (or maybe just mine!). It seems more like a joke to have these eight countries sign this document--several of them still haven't really resolved the issues with their own governments and political/religious parties. What kind of military contribution is Poland going to make? Or humanitarian? It's all just political maneuvering. In specific, and I'll take ONE example: never have I seen more chronically psychologically ill people than in Denmark. (Of course, maybe here in the US we just hide it, what with half the population being on Prozac). Maybe I met only a certain types of people, but they all seemed to constantly complain of some ailment or other, but with no sign of visible problem. And wierd family behaviors. Really disfunctional, in my opinion. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka MuraokaMarc Clifton wrote: I don't think, except for Britain, that these countries matter much in the "world opinion" (or maybe just mine!). I should point out that what your saying smacks a great deal of unilateralism - except in this case it's the unilateralism of the "upper" countries like France and Germany. Funny how the US is accused of unilateralism if it doesn't pay attention to what other countries say, but other when France and Germany do it (i.e. when they ignore the opinions of "lesser" countries) - well, they're not being unilateralist? Sounds to me like just a variation on a theme - i.e. who is allowed to make decisions. It does ring a little hollow that countries like France and Germany want to be included in the decision-making process, but then readily ignore the opinions of the "lesser" countries. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
peterchen wrote: They do technically fit my definitions of terrorism. Your milage may differ. Might even be some are fake. Still, the list is longer, and not all of them are fake. Your definition of terrorism is totally wacked! WAR (military actions by and against government entities) != TERRORISM peterchen wrote: "Agent Orange" fits *my* definition of a chemical warfare.
To the best of my knowledge, AO was used as a defoliator and not directly against civilians or other military targets.Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *military acts without declaring war. attacking a weak point to create highest effect with least effort. Sounds pretty terroristic to me. Unless, of course, you consider terrorism only when targetting only civilians and bystanders, instead of "the enemy" directly. At least german history doesn't use this definition. AO was liekly not been used against persons. But did anyone care if there *were* people where the US "defoliated"? (Could they know? That was the whole point of the thing) And, in my eyes, it's still chemical warfare. Destroying a potential hideout is a classic technique of war, and it was done by chemical means.
It's a royal pain to watch a sex drugs and rock'n'roll design decay into an aids crack and techno implementation [sighist] [Agile Programming] [doxygen]